[$tinkle]

(follow-on to legalising homosexual unions thread)

check out this ruling in a concord, NH divorce court.

Seems we haven't licked this topic yet.
no, i wasn't cruising rainbownetwork
yes, glenn beck gave me the heads-up
(pun count: 3)

 

[Tenchiro]

Sounds like Bill Clinton presided over that ruling... I guess it is true what they say, "eatin' isn't cheatin'".

 

[brock]

The dissenting judges said adultery should be defined more broadly to include other extramarital sexual activity

Too bad they didn't say the courts should stay out of people's personal lives, regardless of sexual orientation.

How does making adultery a criminal offence make our society a better or safer place to place to live? Does adding the level of criminal prosecution somehow make things easier or solve the issues for the spouse?

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by brock
How does making adultery a criminal offence make our society a better or safer place to place to live? Does adding the level of criminal prosecution somehow make things easier or solve the issues for the spouse?

i think when adultery was made a misdemeanor, it was probably the safe middle ground for lawmakers. Kinda like marijuana possession is a misdemeanor (in most states, i believe). Also, pretty much unenforceable. I have absolutely nothing to back this up; this is just a guess on my part.

i would expect this ruling could be leveraged by gay spouses to sue for maintenance who are "abandoned" by their straight spouse in divorce proceedings.

But the court ruled that for adultery to occur there must be sexual intercourse, and homosexuals are incapable of intercourse.

so now there's no such thing as gay pr0n? this could segue into a prison-rape thread. Specifically, those rare legitimate lawsuits by prisoners who contract hep-c & aids, due in no small part to having inadequate protection from others. Exceptions of course for ken laye, et al.

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by $tinkle
i think when adultery was made a misdemeanor, it was probably the safe middle ground for lawmakers. Kinda like marijuana possession is a misdemeanor (in most states, i believe). Also, pretty much unenforceable. I have absolutely nothing to back this up; this is just a guess on my part.

i would expect this ruling could be leveraged by gay spouses to sue for maintenance who are "abandoned" by their straight spouse in divorce proceedings.

so now there's no such thing as gay pr0n? this could segue into a prison-rape thread. Specifically, those rare legitimate lawsuits by prisoners who contract hep-c & aids, due in no small part to having inadequate protection from others. Exceptions of course for ken laye, et al.

Do strap-ons count?
Prison sex tinkle? I bet you've got a full Gimp suit in your basement too

 

[partsbara]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
Do strap-ons count?
Prison sex tinkle? I bet you've got a full Gimp suit in your basement too

you are fvckin evil valve

parts

 

[Andyman_1970]

This could have some interesting implications for gay marriage, could you divorce your spouse if they cheated on you(in a gay marriage)? If the gay community is trying to "legitimize" the concept of gay marriage, I would think this ruling would not help them.

 

[brock]

Originally posted by Andyman_1970
This could have some interesting implications for gay marriage, could you divorce your spouse if they cheated on you(in a gay marriage)? If the gay community is trying to "legitimize" the concept of gay marriage, I would think this ruling would not help them.

For one thing each state has different laws regarding marriage and divorce. Here is Washington, we have "No Fault" divorce. You don't need a reason.

I am not totally clear on how this ruling would hurt the "legitimizing" of gay marriage. Is no marriage legitimate without intercourse?

What about consensual (between all parties) intercourse outside of marriage in heterosexual relationships? Should this be illegal? What business do the courts have in people's bedrooms?

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by brock
How does making adultery a criminal offence make our society a... safer place to place to live?

take two people, neither have an STD, especially AIDS... they won't use a condom if they want to get pregnant, can't get pregnant or use other birth control.

If one spouse cheats, they're putting the safety of the other in jeopardy. So, that's one way adultery should be a criminal act.

If two people are *not* in an "open" marriage, one cheats and gives AIDS to the other, I think that's grounds for some sort of murder charge.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
Do strap-ons count?
Prison sex tinkle? I bet you've got a full Gimp suit in your basement too

<off-topic>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Zed: Bring out the Gimp.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Maynard: But the Gimp's sleeping.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Zed: i guess you just have to go wake him up now, won't you?
</off-topic>

 

[brock]

Originally posted by LordOpie
take two people, neither have an STD, especially AIDS... they won't use a condom if they want to get pregnant, can't get pregnant or use other birth control.

If one spouse cheats, they're putting the safety of the other in jeopardy. So, that's one way adultery should be a criminal act.

If two people are *not* in an "open" marriage, one cheats and gives AIDS to the other, I think that's grounds for some sort of murder charge.

If that were the case one could argue that ANYONE (regardless of marital status) who has had unprotected sex with someone and does not disclose it to a new partner whom they are having unprotected sex with and unknowingly passes HIV to that person could them be charged with murder.

Adultery laws are not on the books to prevent the spread of HIV or any other disease. They are morality laws.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Originally posted by brock
I am not totally clear on how this ruling would hurt the "legitimizing" of gay marriage. Is no marriage legitimate without intercourse?

My point was (which I will admit I did not articulate well) was if the gay community wants gay marriage to be "normal" in society this ruling that homosexual sex is not considered adultery would not help their case. The judge ruling that 2 women having sex is not adulterty sends the message that homosexual activites are "different" as opposed to hetrosexual acitivites. My impression is that the gay community is trying to "normalize" homosexual activities to gain widespread social acceptance.

Furthermore, this ruling seems to perpetuate the sterotype that the gay community is nothing but a big free sex orgy (lots of partners, very permissive). My reasoning there is that if the judge ruled that homosexual sex is not "adulterous", then it could be said in a gay marriage anything goes. I'm not taking that viewpoint, but I can see how this would reienforce the sterotypes of homosexuals.

Also, I agree that the government has NO business in the bedroom.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by LordOpie
take two people, neither have an STD, especially AIDS... they won't use a condom if they want to get pregnant, can't get pregnant or use other birth control.

If one spouse cheats, they're putting the safety of the other in jeopardy. So, that's one way adultery should be a criminal act.

i think that's a tort issue.

Originally posted by LordOpie
If two people are *not* in an "open" marriage, one cheats and gives AIDS to the other, I think that's grounds for some sort of murder charge.

or at least wreckless endangerment.

i'm sure upon more than one occassion, there has existed a jury who has been sympathic to these kind of wrongdoings when the injured party has acted out.

i'm also sure the phrase "all's fair in love & war" is rarely lobbed between spouses

 

[slein]

Originally posted by LordOpie
If two people are *not* in an "open" marriage, one cheats and gives AIDS to the other, I think that's grounds for some sort of murder charge.

i'm sure you know... yet i'll state it anyway:

le SIDA isn't always transmitted sexually. that is the nature of the beast: infectious disease. this argument of criminally causing hurt and harm through biological processes (sex or otherwise) is also an odds game.

just because you have a sickness does not necessarily mean it will be transmitted... the conditions have to be right.

what if you're shooting blanks? would that constitute fraud?

 

[RideND]

I have always wondered if you were bi and had both a bf and a gf, is that cheating?
________
THE CIGAR BOSS

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by RideND
I have always wondered if you were bi and had both a bf and a gf, is that cheating?

i was waiting for someone else to pontificate similarly.
what if a married couple has a 3-some? is the cheater the one who's opposite?
which begs: does cheating mean "without permission"?

i hope i never have to know these answers.

 

[brock]

Originally posted by Andyman_1970
My point was (which I will admit I did not articulate well) was if the gay community wants gay marriage to be "normal" in society this ruling that homosexual sex is not considered adultery would not help their case. The judge ruling that 2 women having sex is not adulterty sends the message that homosexual activites are "different" as opposed to hetrosexual acitivites. My impression is that the gay community is trying to "normalize" homosexual activities to gain widespread social acceptance.

Furthermore, this ruling seems to perpetuate the sterotype that the gay community is nothing but a big free sex orgy (lots of partners, very permissive). My reasoning there is that if the judge ruled that homosexual sex is not "adulterous", then it could be said in a gay marriage anything goes. I'm not taking that viewpoint, but I can see how this would reienforce the sterotypes of homosexuals.

Also, I agree that the government has NO business in the bedroom.

I see what you saying. When you put it that way it does seem to perpetuate the stereotype.

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by $tinkle
i was waiting for someone else to pontificate similarly.
what if a married couple has a 3-some? is the cheater the one who's opposite?
which begs: does cheating mean "without permission"?

i hope i never have to know these answers.

What if the third one's a tranny...you know tits and a d*ck. Good thread Tinkle

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by brock
I see what you saying. When you put it that way it does seem to perpetuate the stereotype.

I actually agree with Andyman (I think that's a first). I think the ruling de-legitimizes homosexual relationships.

There's no good reason to distinguish acts of sex with regards to adultery/morality: oral or intercourse, gay or straight. It is all a roughly equal level of intimacy and roughly equally damaging to a marraige.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by ohio
I actually agree with Andyman (I think that's a first). I think the ruling de-legitimizes homosexual relationships.

There's no good reason to distinguish acts of sex with regards to oral or intercourse. It is all a roughly equal level of intimacy and roughly equally damaging to a marraige.

I dunno man, I've had plenty of girls that would do one, but not the other....at least until the second date.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Originally posted by ohio
I actually agree with Andyman (I think that's a first). I think the ruling de-legitimizes homosexual relationships.

Quick someone record this in the RM history book....................

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by ohio
I actually agree with Andyman (I think that's a first). I think the ruling de-legitimizes homosexual relationships.

There's no good reason to distinguish acts of sex with regards to adultery/morality: oral or intercourse, gay or straight. It is all a roughly equal level of intimacy and roughly equally damaging to a marraige.

Dunno Ohio...I think I'd be a tad more shocked if the missus was having it off with milkwoman rather than the milkman

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I dunno man, I've had plenty of girls that would do one, but not the other....at least until the second date.

Same here accept the current one did it backwards (no not physically "backwards"... just the order of progression). How fvcked up is that? Started at home plate, and ran the bases clockwise. Now we're back to square one (wee little smooches and a firm "goodnight"), even though there aren't exactly any, uh, secrets between the two of us left.

Maybe it was just a terrible performance by me? Unlikely, but stranger things have happened.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
Dunno Ohio...I think I'd be a tad more shocked if the missus was having it off with milkwoman rather than the milkman

I'd personally prefer the latter over the former, but I still feel either could be called adultery and be grounds for divorce.

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by ohio
I'd personally prefer the latter over the former, but I still feel either could be called adultery and be grounds for divorce.

Yeah, I think you can safely say your marriage is on shaky ground when your missus is doing the horizontal tango with dairy delivery people

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by ohio
Same here accept the current one did it backwards (no not physically "backwards"... just the order of progression). How fvcked up is that? Started at home plate, and ran the bases clockwise. Now we're back to square one (wee little smooches and a firm "goodnight"), even though there aren't exactly any, uh, secrets between the two of us left.

Maybe it was just a terrible performance by me? Unlikely, but stranger things have happened.

Man, that is facked!

Not to sound bad here dude, but maybe she is...uh...either feeling like a skank for sleeping with you too early, or trying to slowly break it all off with ya. I suggest sleeping with her mom or sister under either circumstance.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by ohio
I actually agree with Andyman (I think that's a first). I think the ruling de-legitimizes homosexual relationships.

There's no good reason to distinguish acts of sex with regards to adultery/morality: oral or intercourse, gay or straight. It is all a roughly equal level of intimacy and roughly equally damaging to a marraige.

closer to home, this might play out in a lesbian couple custody battle. I'm sure the NH ruling could be factored in the appeal. I believe the child was adopted by both (vice born of one).

again with the church-n-state debacle

 

[golgiaparatus]

It should.

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by brock
Too bad they didn't say the courts should stay out of people's personal lives, regardless of sexual orientation.

That's it Brock I'm nominating you for King or something.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by $tinkle
closer to home,

Actually the first one is about as close to home as you can get. I live in Hanover, just a couple of blocks from dude in the story who happens to be an econ prof at my school...


By the way, BS, I read it the same way you did, and came to the conclusion that she was wasting my time. She's got an open ended bootie call if she wants it, but we've agreed to stay "single" and I'm taking full advantage of that.

 

[stevew]

Originally posted by $tinkle
<off-topic>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Zed: Bring out the Gimp.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Maynard: But the Gimp's sleeping.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Zed: i guess you just have to go wake him up now, won't you?
</off-topic>

hehehe